one -- well, that is -- i'm sorry? and then there is one of electrical that is going to be on the fifth floor. commissioner lee: these all say "for field inspection." >> there is an -- the -- there's an error in terms of one of those electrical inspectors online 3. that should have said the fifth floor. we apologize for that. commissioner lee: how about we

get this corrected and then let us review it again? commissioner hechanova: commissioners, additional comments? >> there is a change in the overtime for building inspection. is that related to this discussion, or is this related to the outreach programs? >> it is related to this subject, but basically, if we cannot fulfil the planchette, we have some of them on over time, so you want to make sure. that is also the case when we have inspections that, like, for

the high-rises, a lot of the inspections have to be done off hours. that will help cover -- you know, covered by over time. essentially, the way it works is that the budget comes in. it is managed at the level of salary, so we have budgeted over time, but if we do not use that and we actually are able to higher positions and do not need to have the overtime, the money is still there for that, it is a little bit fungible. >> the other question i had was -- >> one more comment before you pause it. >> sorry, there is one other thing pointed out. the budget reflects a 4.6% increase in salary because at this point in time, we have open contracts with the unions and the furlough days are supposed to expire, so when they expire,

it jumps the salaries up, so some of the incremental is because of that. >> my other question is -- how is it that we are retiring cars at 22,000 miles and 39,000 miles? where are these cars being driven? >> the reason the mileage is low is because these are used by the inspectors. all the inspectors have a car, and they go between short areas because they are located in districts. the problem we are having with our vehicles is one, they are old. two, central shops cannot fix a lot of our cars, the mileage does not mean that much. it is more the fact that some of the cars are not being fixed right because they do not have enough staff or there is something -- it is like having a bad card. eventually, you want to get rid of it.

and even though we have the low mileage, we are not the easiest on our cars. police are the hardest on their cars, but we are not, you know -- it is not like treating your car the way you do your own personal car. we chose these by -- we went to the divisions and asked about the worst cars they had, said the criteria was -- so the criteria was age and mileage, but there were also criteria of whether the cars were operable, they have a lot of problems, you send it to the shop and it comes back broken so we have to send it back. that sort of thing. commissioner murphy: you are saying a 5-year-old car might have only 9,000 miles on it? >> a 5-year-old car might have lower miles on it, then you as an individual might want to have to replace it, but given that

the maintenance on them is -- it is difficult management of maintenance, and they agree that they are having problems fulfilling everybody's need for maintenance. i mean, we have engines blowup. cars that are not very old, we have had engines blow up. >> in the department we went to and talked about our plan to buy new cars, and they were satisfied with our selection, where they the same ones who advise us on buying these, do you know? probably before your time, but it they are lemons -- the priuses should be more reliable. i do not know that the chevy, but anyway, a lot of money. >> the city has a list of approved cars. the department selects the cars they want. they get approved.

but to the extent that you would call it approval that those are the right cars to buy, it is more -- they look at it more now than they used to in years past, and, there is the green, clean air, all that, so we get even more scrutiny than we have in the past. we came to a consensus, which had to happen prior to the mayor's office agreeing to build the budget. they always question us on why we are not using these -- you know, a longer time, but we have explained that our need for the vehicles makes it low mileage but reliable cars. commissioner hechanova: commissioners? commissioner mar: -- commissioner murphy: just one more thing. in fairness, our director tweaks

this budget, and she was -- i believe she is definitely on the right track as far as some of the changes she is talking about making, and i appreciate that. i just want to say that. >> thank you. commissioner hechanova: commissioners? >> let me add my comment also before we put it to action. the category being that we are trying to propose this year's budget, but also, coincident with that is for the second year, given one, operating and one being a project that will be adjustable relative to what we will perform this year. dbi as an enterprise department has also the category by which we are kind of lagging if we do not have the personnel or at least the budget in place

necessary to address the issues relative to categories that we could almost fill those vacancies by virtue of what is the pool of technical talent that will not only need now, but also a pool that basically is being impeded by the ability to hire and bring them on. effectively staff to meet the current needs. and if we are a year away from getting these people on board, we are at risk for not only this coming year, the balance of this coming year, but for -- but the categories that we seem to be trying to play catch-up when we almost have to be ahead of the curve, by virtue of the least financially and monetarily burying the budget as opposed to trying to go back there to ask.

and so, the economic impact here is where we are trying to process the permits in the most efficient way by having personnel there because that really has the ripple effect by bringing on board sooner instead of trying to play catch up on the economic side of both construction jobs and the ripple effect associated with that. so it seems like we need more adjustment in the category of information on the material content and some of the strong concerns here by all the commissioners are really a reflection that maybe there is additional information that we

can provide or want to see. commissioner walker: i think this budget lays out the appropriate level of staffing. the issue is that there are and the positions that have not been filled, so the results have not been experienced at the level of the fifth floor, etc. i do not think it is a problem with the budget. i think it is a problem with our ability to fill positions. very different. i think that in talking about deficiencies of staff, we really have to look at how many open positions there are. that is really the key here. otherwise, we are spending in the wind. we do not even know. when you have this many positions open, it is really difficult to tell what the effects are. i think the budget is fine. it adds sufficient personnel for next year and the following year. we also, like you said, can come

back if we have a huge uptick of business. we have that capacity. i am sure we would be supported in adding service positions, but we also have next year's budget to amend as we get to next year. i think that what we see here is we have been adding staff to address the issues, to do the kind of reforming we are doing. we have added positions, and they are in the process of being killed. if we could speed that up, it would be helpful for us to see if these issues of concern are really issues of understaffing or just under filling. right now, i think it is under filling. commissioner lee: i will tell everybody where i'm coming from. i have been getting comments

from the public, concerns that the process will make things we fear for them to get permits, and i do not believe so. i truly hope we do not make it link here linklengthie -- lengthier. i was hoping it would be up and running three or four months ago, and unfortunately, it is not, so we do not have any numbers to justify saying that it is not working well or we need to solve something. but i will say let's give it the benefit of the doubt that it is working with the number of staff that we have appropriated, meaning of the vacancies get filled and stuff, and i appreciate that, but also, we are looking at next year's budget and saying that if workers permitting, it is going to increase, we need to act fast. to me, it felt confusing that we

would add more inspectors on the back then, but not plan checkers on the front end. today, i hear that some of the inspectors will become plan checkers, but i do not see that in the documents here today. i would like to may be asked staff to make that change in the documents, reflect that some of these inspectors will be called up to the fifth floor said that the fifth floor will be able to run. that is my suggestion. commissioner hechanova: additional comments? >> yes, that is just a clerical error in the budget. the money is the same, whether we put the staff on the fifth floor or the inspectors. why they are saying there are electrical inspectors is because they will work out of the electrical division and will not work out of the over-the-

counter fifth floor division. they will be assigned upstairs, just as the engineers are assigned upstairs and the clerks are assigned upstairs. the clerks we are getting will be trained on the first floor and will be available for the fifth floor if the fifth floor does not have enough clerks to service the public that is coming in. same thing with the engineers and the electrical inspectors. the problem being now we have to check plans for solar. we have to check the mechanical plans and the gray water for the plumbing. everything that has been put in the codes, they have been planned checking on the third floor right now without any revenue. that is why they are going up to the fifth floor, and we are going to track it. if we find that it is not speeding up the process as it is

meant to do, we will pull it. we are not going to let the public suffers by the implementation of something that is not right and is not working. it has been working in other building departments throughout california, and some of our customers already use it in other cities, and it is successful. it was something that was demanded, if you remember, by the civil grand jury in a report from 2005 or 2006 and was actually purchased in the early 2008 to satisfy a civil grand jury action. it has taken this long to implement it due to different things that had to happen in the building. we have to have electrical come in. we had to have the department of building repair come in and put in electrical plugs.

this takes time. when you are working through the dpw for contracts. everything after the system was actually bought, the actual equipment did not come in for two or three years, so we are going to try. it is the newest version of the system. maybe it will work, maybe it will not, but the demands of san francisco plan checking is different than most cities, it might not work here. if it does not work, we will pull it. we are not going to let the public wait longer to get permits, and we are going to be monitoring this, and we have ways to monitor how long we can take from the start to the finish of a permit, rather than someone going to a clipboard, having our plan checkers go up,

grab a clipboard, calling their name, and going back to the seat. that takes time, too. it is less time to push a button and call them up from a number. and the system will automatically circle people through the plan checking units. we have had to change the software in the system, but we have -- that project was funded many years ago by the commission, and it is an ongoing project. still, as i say, we will pull it, and i would like the support of the commission. i will come back to the commission and tell them, "it is not working. we are pulling it." i would like the support of the commission to do that. commissioner hechanova: giving your criteria whether to pull at your not, what is the criteria for a time line? what is a reasonable time line to make that evaluation? >> we would like at least three

months to report back to the commission. we plan on starting it on march 5, and it would be before the end of this fiscal year. commissioner mar: the crop -- commissioner murphy: they probably would have let you know in 90 days whether it is working or not. >> we will work closely with the public, monitor the public, and we have people actually not working on the counter that will be doing that, helping the customers. that is the reason. additional clerks might not be issuing permits. they might be helping the customer get through the system or guide them around in the very beginning. or throughout the time, depending on what we need for the system. >> will there be a criteria of maybe five reference questions that can be substantial that at least can be consistent with the

responses from those stakeholders? >> yes, and actually, we can develop them at the public advisory committee meetings, which stakeholders to go to those meetings, and they can develop the criteria for the evaluation of the system. >> so there is no criteria in place right now, but it needs to be developed? >> the questionnaire can be developed, but we have some internal criteria that we are looking at, and we developed as we were training to see on some test cases, but we have to see an actual production. >> i would like to see that added to the agenda for the next meeting, by virtue of how they could participate because they are the stakeholders, and they are the ones who want to at least the criteria being efficiency and the productivity

of efficiency and their time when they come to process or have their permit process. >> we could certainly look into that. commissioner lee: i still think we should revise this document. if this is going to be sent to the mayor's office or the board of supervisors for review, they are going to want to take note that what this justification really is. if it just said for field inspection and they may ask the same question i did and why there are more field inspectors then plan reviewers. second, i do not want the new higher rate think that there are just for field inspection. those are my comments on why i would like to see this change. commissioner walker: can we make that change here? in order to have documents for

our budget? i guess the 16 or 17 chart where you are defining -- commissioner murphy: the due date is not until after our next meeting, so what is the hurry? commissioner walker: it seems like minor changes to the description, the justification. >> we could easily make that change and send it out through sonya. you could agree to this with that caveat, or we could consider it at the next meeting. i just want to make sure that -- or just reiterate that having any changes happen on the 15th will make it very difficult to get it into all the information forms, so it is not just passing it on to them, but we have done it before and would be glad to again.

>> i actually think that this is the second reading. we have gotten some clarifications, and it seems like we could make these amendments to help define the justification. i think that we should just vote on it. i think that all of it has been explained, and this is why we have a special meeting. commissioner mar: i am also kind of concern -- i want to make the budget document as clear as possible, but i am also concerned that we do not get into employee classifications, description of their work or work assignments because, to me, that is not part of the budget process, either. it is a fine line we should not get into because i'm sure all that stuff is clearly laid out, not only in the department work rules, but also in the union

contract. because i think their assignments, whether they are in the field, the office, fifth floor, first floor, i think that should be clearly and administrative task, and i think some of that is even crossing over. in our minds, it may be easy -- share, an engineer can do the job of a clerk. well, talk to seiu about that. i do not want to get into that. i do not think it is our purview to get into that, and i do not think the board of supervisors -- it is their purview to get into that either. i think that the most important thing is that we have job openings under very clear classifications, and that is what we want to hire at. those are the things that get approved by human-resources, and those are the things that are regulated by full-service under

which job can do what, and those are the things that i think the mayor's office will approve or not approve. the work assignments and stock -- that is day-to-day. commissioner murphy: commissioner mar is completely right. we should not get into that. which is another reason why we should have the director and staff take another look at this and see where we can -- i used the word before -- tweak it. and bring it to the next meeting and we will approve it then. there's not much point in voting on it today. that is it for me. commissioner walker: i move to approve the budget. >> is there any public comment on item two, the budget? there is a motion by

commissioner walker. is there a second? >> i will second. >> roll call vote on a motion to approve the budget. commissioner hechanova: no. commissioner mar: aye. no. commissioner lee: no. commissioner murphy: no. commissioner walker: yes. >> the motion fails 4-2. commissioner lee: i would like to move that we continue the budget hearing. >> public comment on the motion to continue the budget? ok, seeing none, i will do an additional roll call vote on the motion to continue the budget to our next meeting. commissioner hechanova: yes. commissioner mar: yes.

commissioner clinch: yes. commissioner lee: yes. commissioner walker: yes. >> the motion carried unanimously. item three, a discussion to and then permit extension procedures. >> we had a public advisory committee meeting, and i have attached a draft of the proposed changes to the building codes regarding the extension and cancellations of permit applications and issued permits. as you can see in the blue column, which is the last meeting that we had, they asked to have the application expiration for over $1 million extended for 720 days instead

of 360 days, which is two years instead of one year. that would allow them pay once s for projects over $1 million, per our fee table. the other changes in blue, we still have a meeting on february 8. we need to discuss and actual permit expiration for permits with violations. what happens is, sometimes they will get a permit issued, permit application, and they cannot get the permit within the time limit, and to to some hold up by another department. we would like to be able to extend that. i actually had comments that were due in from the pac and

they have not been received yet. that is why i put that in. we need to discuss this. table b is the maximum time allowed to complete the work allowed by the building permit. on the permit extension four projects, even on the small projects, they would like to be able to extend and 720 days. that does not include a code enforcement cases. this would be for regular permits to extend the 720 days, which is essentially two years, and the same thing on the permits over $2.5 million. so far, that is as far as we have gotten in table 1a in discussions at the puc meeting. the next meeting is february 8. we will try to a agendas -- agendize the president abbas

comments so that we can move on. i like the opinion of the commission on whether or not they would agree with these changes as they are coming before i go ahead and advise the pac committee that we would support them in this endeavor. i need to do this and also get with the city attorney. this is a code change. this is not an administrative bulletin. commissioner murphy: thank you, director, for bringing it this far forward. i think this should run through the pac committee again, get their views on it, let them see this document. i think that is the most fair way to do it. >> that is what will hapn